DOCSLIB.ORG

Restitution As an Alternative Remedy for a Tort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restitution As an Alternative Remedy for a Tort NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 2 Issue 1 New York Law Forum, Volume 2, Issue Article 2 1, 1956 January 1956 RESTITUTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY FOR A TORT Ludwig Teller Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ludwig Teller, RESTITUTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY FOR A TORT, 2 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 40 (1956). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. RESTITUTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY FOR A TORT LUDWIG TELLER RESTITUTION is a term now widely used to define the remedy which older practitioners customarily describe by the words quasi- contracts. The remedy of restitution is designed to prevent unjust enrichment; the measure of recovery is not the plaintiff's damage but the benefit secured or reaped by the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff. The preference for restitution as the descriptive word comes from three main purposes: first, to indicate the inclusion of equitable remedies of a quasi-contractual nature, like subrogation, the equita- ble lien, the constructive trust; second, to get away from many of the historical abstractions attached to the common counts in general assumpsit which often limit the availability of the restitutionary reme- dy; third, to point up the broad purview of the remedy, and the ex- tent to which it is a distinct subject which cuts across all branches of the law. It is a vehicle for effectuating justice in numerous situa- tions where accustomed remedial categories may prove inadequate.' A significant contribution to the subject of restitution was re- cently made in New York by the Appellate Division, First Depart- ment, in Dentists Supply Co. of New York v. Cornelius,' whose de- cision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals without opinion. The present article is devoted to the ramifications of the decision in this case, in relation to the action for restitution as an alternative remedy. LuDwxG TEER, of the New York Bar, is a Professor of Law at New York Law School, a member of the New York State Legislature, and the author of the treatise Tnn LAW GoVEwmnG LABOR DispumTs AND COLLECTIVE BAoAnnnG and other books and articles. The present article is in substance part of a forthcoming treatise on Restitution. 1 Keener's work on quasi-contracts published in 1893, which was followed by Woodward's book in 1913, marked out some of the boundaries of the quasi-contrac- tual remedy. Then this important remedy was allowed to become an unclassified appendage of other subjects until the publication in 1937 of the monumental Restate- ment of Restitution by the American Law Institute. "Restitution is a term unknown to legal treatises, encyclopedias and digests, yet it represents one of a trinity of prin- ciples which actuate the proceedings for remedial justice. The law of contracts en- forces promises. The rules of tort provide compensation for harm. Restitution is the equitable principle by which one who has been enriched at the expense of another, whether by mistake or otherwise, is under a duty to return what has been received or its value to the other." Seavey, Problems in Restitution, 7 OxA. L. RPv. 257 (1954). 2 281 App. Div. 306, 119 N. Y. S. 2d 570 (1st Dep't. 1953), aff'd. on certified questions, 306 N. Y. 624, 116 N. E. 2d 238 (1953). 19561 RESTITUTION AS ALTERNATIVE REMEDY It appeared in the Cornelius case that the plaintiff's goods were transferred by his agent without authority to the defendant. This, of course, made the defendant liable for the tort of conversion, gov- erned by a three years' statute of limitations. Apparently that stat- ute had run, so the plaintiff sought to take advantage of the six years' statute applicable to contract actions by suing for restitution, to recover the value of the goods. Special Term held he could not do so, and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed, and by a divided court held that the longer contract statute could be invoked. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. This, it is submitted, was a desirable holding. Perhaps, as interesting as the decision itself was the fairly short opinion of the Appellate Division. Nowhere was the word "restitu- tion" used. No reference was made to the Restatement of Restitution, which appears to support the court's holding.8 "Plaintiff," said the court, "apparently has waived the tort of conversion and is suing in quasi-contract on the theory that he has ratified the transfer as if it were a sale," citing Terry v. Munger,4 about which much has been written (mostly critical) in law review articles and in the opinions of courts of other states, and which has been repudiated by statute in New York. It is well settled that a person aggrieved by a tort committed upon him may at his election sue in the alternative action for resti- tution where the tortfeasor has been enriched by the tort." It is not sufficient that a tort has been committed; it must further appear that the tortfeasor has been enriched as a result.6 The mere "duty to pay damages for a tort does not imply a promise to pay them."7 Resti- tution will not lie for an assault and battery, since while the plaintiff is injured, the defendant is not enriched. Similarly, restitution will 8 REsTATEr T, REST Ti"o § 524 (1937). 4 121 N. Y. 161, 24 N. E. 272 (1890). 5 REsTATEET, REsTrrTuTio § 3 (1937); Corbin, Waiver of Tort and Suit in Assumpsit, 19 YAr= L. J. 221 (1910). Normally the action is for money, but jurisdic- tion resides in equity to grant a restitutionary remedy by way of specific relief to repair the defendant's tort, as where he tortiously withholds a unique chattel. See Taliaferre v. Reirdon, 186 Okla. 603, 99 P. 2d 522 (1940); McGowin v. Renington, 12 Pa. 56, 51 Am. Dec. 584 (1849). For other cases see 1 PomERoy, EQu T JUars- PRUDENCE, § 185 (5th ed., San Francisco and Rochester, 1942). 6 Reynolds Bros. v. Padgett, 94 Ga. 347, 21 S. E. 570 (1894); Greer v. Newland, 70 Kan. 315, 78 Pac. 835 (1904); Kyle v. Chester, 42 Mont. 552, 113 Pac. 749 (1911); RESTATEMENT, REsTioUT § 523 (1937). 7 Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370, 17 N. E. 892 (1888). 8 Bigby v. United States, 188 U. S. 400, 23 S. Ct. 468, 47 L. Ed. 519 (1903). NEW YORK LAW FORUM [VOL. 2 not lie against a wrongdoer where a third party, not the wrongdoer himself, received the benefit.' I. "WAIVER" VERSUS ELECTION OF REMEDIES THE court in the Cornelius case stated that the plaintiff "waived the tort of conversion" when he sued for restitution. This is a com- mon statement in judicial opinions. But it is clear that a party who selects the alternative restitutionary remedy does not "waive" the tort; the tort is the basis of the restitutionary remedy, and proof of the commission of the tort is as necessary when such remedy is in- voked as when action is brought in tort for damages.'0 Thus, an in- fant, though not accountable for breach of contract, may be sued for restitution for a tort. 1 When by statute a body execution is au- thorized in actions "founded upon tort," it has been held that the statute may be invoked in an alternative action for restitution for a tort.'2 The view that the tort is "waived" has led to unfortunate de- cisions in a variety of connections. It has been held, for example, that when property is sold on credit, an action for restitution brought to remedy the defendant's fraud in securing the sale may not be brought until the credit period has expired; the election to sue for restitution instead of for the tort is said to "waive" the fraud and to "affirm" the sale and the period of credit attached to the sale.13 "Waiver" is one of the most confusing terms in our law, and See also N. Y. Central R. Co. v. State, 242 App. Div. 421, 287 N. Y. S. 850 (3d Dep't. 1936) (negligent damage to property). 9 Taylor v. Currey, 216 Ill. App. 19 (1919); Scherger v. Union National Bank, 138 Kan. 239, 25 Pac. 588 (1933); Ward v. Guthrie, 193 Ky. 76, 234 S. W. 955 (1921); Howard v. Swift, 356 Ill.80, 190 N. E. 102 (1934); National Trust Co. v. Gleason, 77 N. Y. 400 (1879). See also Schall v. Gamors, 251 U. S. 239, 40 S. Ct. 135, 64 L. Ed. 247 (1919). 10 See RESTATFmENT, RESiTTUTION, Ch. 7, at 525 (1937); Albee v. Schmied, 250 Mich. 270, 230 N. W. 146 (1930). Elwell v. Martin, 32 Vt. 217 (1859). 11 Bristow v. Eastman, 1 Esp. 172 (1794). 12 Wheeler v. Wilkin, 98 Colo. 568, 58 P. 2d 1223 (1936). '3 Kellogg v. Turpie, 93 Ill.265 (1879); Prest v. Farmington, 117 Me. 348, 104 Atl. 521 (1918). But see American Woolen Co. v. Samuelson, 226 N. Y. 61, 123 N. E. 154 (1919); Stocksdale v. Schuyler, 55 Hun. 610, 8 N. Y. Supp. 813 (1890), aff'd. 130 N. Y. 674, 29 N. E. 1034 (1891). The same faulty approach arises when it said that a party to an executory bilateral contract containing mutually dependent prom- ises may, where the contract is repudiated or materially breached, "waive" the breach (or, what is a variant of the same underlying notion, "rescind" the contract) and sue instead for restitution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Crime Victim Restitution: the Theoretical Arguments and Practical Consequences of Labeling Restitution As Either a Criminal Or Civil Law Concept
    LCB_18_3_Art_15_Shephard_Final.docx (Do Not Delete) 10/30/2014 1:21 PM CLASSIFYING CRIME VICTIM RESTITUTION: THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS AND PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LABELING RESTITUTION AS EITHER A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAW CONCEPT by Bridgett N. Shephard* Introduction ......................................................................................... 802 I. Civil Law and Criminal Law Have Become Increasingly Similar and Interrelated, and the Historical Conceptual Divide Has Become Ambiguous .......................... 803 II. The State of Victim Restitution in the American Justice System ............................................................................. 804 A. The Nature of Restitution and a Comparison with Other Remedies ................................................................................... 804 B. Protecting Victims’ Rights in Federal Criminal Proceedings: The Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act (MVRA) .............................. 806 C. Protecting Victims’ Rights in State Criminal Proceedings with State-Specific Victim Restitution Statutes ..................................... 807 III. The Theoretical Reasons for Classifying Restitution as a Criminal Law Concept ....................................................... 808 A. Theoretical Arguments in Favor of Viewing Restitution as a Civil Concept ............................................................................ 808 B. Theoretical Arguments in Favor of Viewing Restitution as a Criminal Concept .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 4 The Scholarship of Richard A. Epstein Summer 2009 Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age Catherine M. Sharkey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Sharkey, Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 677 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss4/2 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sharkey: Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age TRESPASS TORTS AND SELF-HELP FOR AN ELECTRONIC AGE Catherine M. Sharkey* INTRODU CTION ................................................................................................................ 678 1. SELF-HELP: THE MISSING THIRD REMEDY .......................................................... 679 II. CONCEPTUALIZING SELF-HELP IN CYBERTRESPASS DOCTRINE ........................... 684 A. Self-Help in Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case ................................................... 684 1. Threshold Prerequisite to Invoke Legal Process ................................... 684 2. Liability for Evasion of Self-Help ........................................................ 687 B. Self-Help "Opt-Out" as Affirmative Defense ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-2014 Sheathing Restitution's Dagger 899 Under the Securities
    2013-2014 SHEATHING RESTITUTION’S DAGGER 899 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT SHEATHING RESTITUTION’S DAGGER UNDER THE SECURITIES ACTS: WHY FEDERAL COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO ORDER DISGORGEMENT IN SEC ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FRANCESCO A. DELUCA* “Beneath the cloak of restitution lies the dagger to compel the conscious wrongdoer to disgorge his gains.”1 Table of Contents I. First Principles: A Primer on the SEC’s Disgorgement Remedy, Classic Disgorgement, and the Equity Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts ..................................... 903 A. “Disgorgement” in the Securities Context .................. 903 B. Classic Disgorgement .................................................. 904 C. The Equity Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts ............ 907 II. Disgorgement’s History Under the Securities Acts ........... 908 III. An Analysis of Cavanagh ................................................... 911 A. Analysis of Allegedly Analogous Equitable Remedies ..................................................................... 912 B. Analysis of Binding Precedents .................................. 920 C. Analysis of Persuasive Precedents .............................. 926 IV. The SEC’s Disgorgement Remedy Is Not an Equitable Remedy ............................................................................... 930 V. Implications ....................................................................... 931 VI. Conclusion ......................................................................... 933 * Boston University School of Law (J.D. 2014); Roger
    [Show full text]
  • Representing Yourself and Your Business in Magistrate Court
    REPRESENTING YOURSELF AND YOUR BUSINESS IN MAGISTRATE COURT I. INTRODUCTION Business is rife with conflict. To succeed, a business owner must be adept at resolving these disputes quickly and efficiently. Sometimes, more that a simple phone call, refund or apology is needed. Some disputes must be resolved in court. The American civil judicial system is designed to resolve disputes. Although the process works well, it is expensive and time consuming, sometimes taking several years and costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. For many smaller disputes, the time and cost associated with a traditional lawsuit makes litigation in these forums impractical. Mediation or arbitration are sometimes good options, but only if your adversary is of a similar mindset. There is an alternative. Georgia’s Magistrate Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, hearing civil claims involving disputes of $15,000 and less. It is often described as “Small Claims Court.” With the right judge, it might be more aptly called a “Court of Common Sense.” The rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed. There is no jury. In the State and Superior Courts of Georgia, a corporation must by law be represented by an attorney. This is not true for Magistrate Court, where a business may be represented by an employee or owner. In short, Magistrate Court provides a forum in which it is often possible to secure justice quickly and inexpensively for smaller disputes. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic roadmap for representing yourself and your business successfully in Magistrate Court. II. PROS AND CONS There are advantages and disadvantages to trying your case in Magistrate Court as opposed to the slower and more expensive State and Superior Courts of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity
    The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity Caprice L. Roberts∗ Abstract A restitution revival is underway. Restitution and unjust enrichment theory, born in the United States, fell out of favor here while surging in Commonwealth countries and beyond. The American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment streamlines the law of unjust enrichment in a language the modern American lawyer can understand, but it may encounter unintended problems from the law-equity distinction. Restitution is often misinterpreted as always equitable given its focus on fairness. This blurs decision making on the constitutional right to a jury trial, which "preserves" the right to a jury in federal and state cases for "suits at common law" satisfying specified dollar amounts. Restitution originated in law, equity, and sometimes both. The Restatement notably attempts to untangle restitution from the law-equity labels, as well as natural justice roots. It explicitly eschews equity’s irreparable injury prerequisite, which historically commanded that no equitable remedy would lie if an adequate legal remedy existed. Can restitution law resist hearing equity’s call from the grave? Will it avoid the pitfalls of the Supreme Court’s recent injunction cases that return to historical, equitable principles and reanimate equity’s irreparable injury rule? Losing anachronistic, procedural remedy barriers is welcome, but ∗ Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law; Visiting Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. Washington & Lee University School of Law, J.D.; Rhodes College, B.A. Sincere thanks to Catholic University for supporting this research and to the following conferences for opportunities to present this work: the American Association of Law Schools, the Sixth Annual International Conference on Contracts at Stetson University College of Law, and the Restitution Rollout Symposium at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT of CLAIMS of THE
    REPORTS OF Cases Argued and Determined IN THE COURT of CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VOLUME 39 Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1987 - July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 1988 (Printed by authority of the State of Illinois) (65655--300-7/88) PREFACE The opinions of the Court of Claims reported herein are published by authority of the provisions of Section 18 of the Court of Claims Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.1 et seq. The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters: (a) all claims against the State of Illinois founded upon any law of the State, or upon an regulation thereunder by an executive or administrative ofgcer or agency, other than claims arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act, or claims for certain expenses in civil litigation, (b) all claims against the State founded upon any contract entered into with the State, (c) all claims against the State for time unjustly served in prisons of this State where the persons imprisoned shall receive a pardon from the Governor stating that such pardon is issued on the grounds of innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned, (d) all claims against the State in cases sounding in tort, (e) all claims for recoupment made by the State against any Claimant, (f) certain claims to compel replacement of a lost or destroyed State warrant, (g) certain claims based on torts by escaped inmates of State institutions, (h) certain representation and indemnification cases, (i) all claims pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers, Civil Defense Workers, Civil Air Patrol Members, Paramedics and Firemen Compensation Act, (j) all claims pursuant to the Illinois National Guardsman’s and Naval Militiaman’s Compensation Act, and (k) all claims pursuant to the Crime Victims Compensation Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell V. Hill (N.C. 1899) Misunderstood Lessons John V
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 73 | Number 6 Article 3 9-1-1995 Russell v. Hill (N.C. 1899) Misunderstood Lessons John V. Orth Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John V. Orth, Russell v. Hill (N.C. 1899) Misunderstood Lessons, 73 N.C. L. Rev. 2031 (1995). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol73/iss6/3 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUSSELL V HILL (N.C. 1899) MISUNDERSTOOD LESSONS JOHN V. ORTH* In this essay, Professor Orth examines the North Carolina Supreme Court's opinion in Russell v. Hill, which has long been unfavorably compared with the contemporaneousMinnesota case of Anderson v. Gouldberg. Both cases concerned claims to property by two parties,neither of whom was the true owner, and both cases relied on the venerable common law case of Armory v. Delamirie. Professor Orth explains that the North Carolina court's decision resultedfrom strict insistence upon the elements of the common law forms of action. In contrast, the Minnesota court, broadly construingprecedent, made a policy choice which it believed would best protectproperty. Professor Orth concludes, however, that the North Carolinacourt's decision has proved to be no less protective Russell v. Hill' is, in its way, one of the most famous cases ever decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court, but it has an unenviable fame because most right-thinking lawyers today think it was wrongly decided.2 A staple of first-year property courses,3 the case involved a claim by Russell for the value of logs that the partnership of Hill and Nelson had taken from his possession without authority.4 Plaintiff honestly but mistakenly believed that the logs * William Rand Kenan, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Section 142 of the Restatement of Restitution: Fault, Bad Faith, and Change of Position John D
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 65 | Issue 3 Article 3 Summer 1-6-2008 Rethinking Section 142 of the Restatement of Restitution: Fault, Bad Faith, and Change of Position John D. McCamus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation John D. McCamus, Rethinking Section 142 of the Restatement of Restitution: Fault, Bad Faith, and Change of Position, 65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 889 (2008), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/ wlulr/vol65/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking Section 142 of the Restatement of Restitution: Fault, Bad Faith, and Change of Position John D. McCamus* Abstract As a general rule, benefits transferredby mistake, such as moneys paidwhen mistakenly thought due, are recoverable in a restitution claim. Section 142 of the First Restatement of Restitution creates a defense to such claims to the extent that the payee, in reliance on the receipt,engages in a detrimental change ofposition, thereby making it inequitable to require repayment. The defense is unavailable, however, where the conduct of the payee in initially inducing the payment or in subsequent retention or dealings with the payment was either tortious or more at fault than the payer or, further, in the context of subsequent dealings, was undertakenby the payee with knowledge of the circumstancesentitling the payer to recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa Superior Court Martinez, California Department: 39 Hearing Date: 10/01/20
    CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 39 HEARING DATE: 10/01/20 1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC16-01102 CASE NAME: DARLA MUTTER VS. MERITAGE HOME HEARING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT FILED BY SONRAY SOLAR, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Dropped at the request of the moving party on September 18, 2020. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC19-01406 CASE NAME: PEREZ VS. BILL BRANDT FORD INC. HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY BILL BRANDT FORD, INC., et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a Demurrer by Defendant Bill Brandt Ford, Defendant Rob Brandt, and Defendant Bobby Dell’Aringa. The Demurrer relates to Plaintiff Carlo Perez’s First Amended Complaint. The FAC alleges eleven causes of action, but the Demurrer is directed towards only the causes of action for (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (9) negligent misrepresentation; (10) civil assault; and (11) negligent retention, hiring and supervision. For the following reasons, the demurrer is overruled-in-part and sustained-in-part, with leave to amend. Factual Background Defendant Bill Brandt Ford employed Plaintiff as a Finance Manager at its Brentwood, California facility. (FAC ¶ 1,2,17.) Defendant Rob Brandt and Defendant Bobby Dell’Aringa were also employed by Bill Brandt Ford at the time of the events of the FAC. (Id. ¶¶ 3,4.) Plaintiff alleges that during his tenure at Bill Brandt Ford, Defendants “engaged in a practice and/or scheme of unlawful chargebacks against Plaintiff’s earned commissions.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff further alleges that “thousands of dollars in unlawful chargebacks were not expressly authorized in a written commission agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants.” (Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Restitution in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Joseph Perillo Fordham University School of Law
    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 1981 Restitution in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Joseph Perillo Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Perillo, Restitution in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 37 (1981) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/788 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Restitution in the Second Restatement of Contracts Joseph M. Perillo* The rules governing restitution in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts combine outworn dogma with audacious innovation. The new Restatement's uni- fied coverage of the topic is an important improvement on its predecessor's treat- ment of the subject; the first Restatement's chapter on restitution dealt with res- titution primarily in three contexts: as a remedy for a defendant's breach; as relief in favor of a defaulting plaintiff; and as compensation for a performance rendered under a contract unenforceable because of noncompliance with the Stat- ute of Frauds.' In the Restatement (Second) the topic expands to encompass also restitution following
    [Show full text]
  • Victim Restitution Guide
    HOW IS RESTITUTION COLLECTED WHEN THE IS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE OFFENDER IS RELEASED FROM PRISON? OFFENDER PAYS? Any outstanding restitution owed upon the offender’s You may be eligible for financial assistance through release will be referred to the Franchise Tax Board the Victim Compensation and Government Claims RIVERSIDE COUNTY (FTB). Victims may verify that their restitution debt Board (VCGCB) before the offender is sentenced and has been transferred to the FTB by calling the OVSRS. ordered to pay restitution or if a restitution order PROBATION was imposed, but restitution cannot be collected DEPARTMENT If an offender was in state prison, but is now under immediately. the supervision of the Probation Department, the CDCR may still be responsible for collection of Please contact your victim advocate for more restitution. information. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I DON’T GET PAID? ARE ADDITIONAL VICTIM RESOURCES AVAILABLE? Restitution orders do not expire and cannot be You may also get help from: Victim discharged through bankruptcy. The offender’s restitution debt remains until it is paid in full. • California Victim Compensation Program 800-777-9229 Restitution If the offender is on probation, contact the Probation [email protected] Department at 951-955-9451, which will assist you in calvcp.ca.gov obtaining restitution from the offender. Guide • Riverside County Victim Services Main Office If the offender was sentenced to state prison, inform 951-955-5450 the CDCR’s OVSRS that you are not receiving • CDCR’s Office of Victim and Survivor Rights payments. and Services (OVSRS) 877-256-6877 CAN I COLLECT RESTITUTION AS CIVIL JUDGMENT? cdcr.ca.gov/victims If you would like to collect a restitution order on your • California Attorney General’s Office of Victim Services own, you may do so through a civil judgment.
    [Show full text]